Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > October 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-38039 October 4, 1988 - GENEROSA CAWIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-38039. October 4, 1988.]

GENEROSA CAWIT and BRAULIO LUMAYNO, Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and NOE, TOMAS and GERARDO, all surnamed DINO, Respondents.

Alexander J. Cawit, for Petitioners.

Dionisio C. Isidro for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; APPEAL; FAILURE TO STATE IN THE RECORD ON APPEAL TIMELINESS OF APPEAL, NOT FATAL. — In the early case of Berkenkotter v. Court of Appeals, promulgated on September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 228, We departed from the rigid interpretation of Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the effect that failure to state and/or show in the Record on Appeal that the appeal was perfected on time is a sufficient cause for the dismissal of the appeal. In that case, We said: "The mere absence of a formal order granting the motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal should not be fatal to the petitioner if the record on appeal filed within the requested extension period was approved by the Court a quo. As previously stated, the approval thereof carries with it the approval of the motion for extension and the mere failure of the record on appeal to show such approval should not defeat the right to appeal. No trial Judge in his right mind and who is aware of the serious responsibilities of his office, would approve a record on appeal that was not timely filed."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — There is every reason, therefore, to apply the principle of substantial justice to the instant case for the following considerations first, the Court is given the discretion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal, notice of appeal and appeal bond, provided the notice for extension of time is filed within the 30-day reglementary period; second, there is every reason to assume that the record on appeal was ‘filed on time’ because it was approved after due hearing by the Court in its Order dated November 14, 1972; and last, but not the least, considering the merits of the case, to dismiss petitioners’ appeal would not serve the ends of justice. An appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. It would be in keeping with the ends of substantial justice if petitioners’ appeal were to take its course.


D E C I S I O N


BIDIN, J.:


This is a petition assailing the Resolution dated January 25, 1973 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 50644-R which dismissed herein petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the Record on Appeal does not contain sufficient data, particularly, the date of receipt of the trial court’s decision to show that the appeal was perfected on time.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

Private respondents, as co-owners of lot No. 2318 Escalante Cadastre, instituted a civil action for legal redemption before the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental at San Carlos City against petitioners to redeem the 1/7 share of said parcel of land belonging to one of the co-owners which was purchased by the petitioners.

After trial and hearing, the lower court, on January 20, 1972, rendered a decision against petitioners, allowing private respondents to redeem the questioned property. On February 21, 1972, petitioners filed with the trial court a notice of appeal and appeal bond. On February 24, 1972, the record on appeal was filed and the same was approved by the court a quo in its Order dated March 16, 1972 without private respondents’ opposition.

Petitioners submitted before the Court of Appeals forty (40) copies of the printed record on appeal. On December 5, 1972, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that the record on appeal did not contain sufficient data to show that the appeal was perfected on time.

On January 25, 1973, as previously stated, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Petitioner sought reconsideration of the said resolution but the same was denied on November 20, 1973, hence, this petition.

The issue in this case is whether or not the failure to state in the Record on Appeal the date of receipt by petitioners of the trial court’s decision to show that the appeal was perfected on time is fatal to the appeal.

In the early case of Berkenkotter v. Court of Appeals, promulgated on September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 228, We departed from the rigid interpretation of Section 6, Rule 41 1 of the Rules of Court to the effect that failure to state and/or show in the Record on Appeal that the appeal was perfected on time is a sufficient cause for the dismissal of the appeal. In that case, We said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The mere absence of a formal order granting the motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal should not be fatal to the petitioner if the record on appeal filed within the requested extension period was approved by the Court a quo. As previously stated, the approval thereof carries with it the approval of the motion for extension and the mere failure of the record on appeal to show such approval should not defeat the right to appeal. No trial Judge in his right mind and who is aware of the serious responsibilities of his office, would approve a record on appeal that was not timely filed. There is every reason, therefore, to apply the principle of substantial justice to the instant case for the following considerations first, the Court is given the discretion to extend the period for filing the record on appeal, notice of appeal and appeal bond, provided the notice for extension of time is filed within the 30-day reglementary period; second, there is every reason to assume that the record on appeal was ‘filed on time’ because it was approved after due hearing by the Court in its Order dated November 14, 1972; and last, but not the least, considering the merits of the case, to dismiss petitioners’ appeal would not serve the ends of justice."cralaw virtua1aw library

The above doctrine has been followed in Pimentel v. Court of Appeals, 64 SCRA 475 (1975); Morales v. Court of Appeals, 67 SCRA 304 (1975); Krueger v. Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 50 (1976); San Pedro v. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 536 (1976); Aznar v. Court of Appeals, 85 SCRA 372 (1978); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 106 SCRA 566 (1981); Republic v. Court of Appeals, 118 SCRA 409 (1982); and Garbo v. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 616 (1984).chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Although petitioners’ record on appeal failed to indicate when they (petitioners) received a copy of the trial court’s decision dated January 20, 1972, there is a compensating feature that redeems petitioners’ record on appeal from its apparent deficiency. It is a fact of record that the trial court approved petitioners’ record on appeal in an Order dated March 16, 1972 without objection on the part of private respondents. Since the validity and accuracy of this order of approval of the record on appeal by the trial court has not been questioned by private respondents, respondent Appellate Court should have relied thereon and held that the petitioners’ appeal had been perfected on time. Thus, in Pimentel v. Court of Appeals, supra, We ruled:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But the herein private respondents do not question the correctness of the order of the trial court dated January 24, 1974, approving the records on appeal on the ground that ‘there being no more objections to the corrected records on appeal . . . and it appearing that the notice of appeal, records on appeal and appeal bonds have been filed within the reglementary period, . . .’ Inevitably, they admit the facts stated in said order. Hence, implicit in the said order are the data required to show the fact that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. Because the said order approving the records on appeal is part of both the original and printed records on appeal and the accuracy and truth of the factual statements therein are not impugned by herein private respondents, the respondent Appellate Court should have relied on the same and could have determined therefrom that the appeal in both cases was perfected on time."cralaw virtua1aw library

As pointed out, in Berkenkotter and previously quoted herein," (n)o trial Judge in his right mind and who is aware of the serious responsibilities of his office, would approve a record on appeal that was not timely filed."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, the records show that the questioned decision dated January 20, 1972 of the trial court whose station is in San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, was sent by registered mail on January 22, 1972 to petitioners’ counsel at Escalante, Negros Occidental. The said decision was received by the Post Office of Escalante on February 4, 1972. The same was delivered and received by the addressee on February 11, 1972 (p. 11, Rollo). The record on appeal was filed on February 24, 1972 or only after a lapse of 13 days. Even assuming that the questioned decision was delivered to petitioners’ counsel on February 4, 1972, the same day when the decision was received by the Post Office of Escalante, still the record on appeal was filed within the 30-day reglementary period to perfect the appeal.cralawnad

An appeal is an essential part of our judicial system. Courts should proceed with caution so as not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. It would be in keeping with the ends of substantial justice if petitioners’ appeal were to take its course. Petitioners believe that the questioned property can no longer be redeemed because it was sold to them way back on July 25, 1959 and private respondents have actual knowledge of the sale. On the other hand, private respondents’ stand is that the 30-day redemption period should be counted from December 19, 1969 when they were notified in writing by the vendor and co-owner Teodoro Dino of the sale of the land; and that the offer to redeem was made on December 23, 1969, which was within the redemption period.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated January 25, 1973 and November 20, 1973 are hereby Reversed and Set Aside and the said court is hereby ordered to reinstate and give due course to petitioners’ appeal in CA-G.R. No. 50644-R.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

No pronouncement as to costs.

Fernan (C. J.), Feliciano and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Sec. 6. Record on Appeal; form and contents thereof . — The full names of all the parties to the proceedings shall be stated in the caption of the record on appeal and it shall include the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken, and, in chronological order, copies of only such pleadings, petitions, motions and all interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed order or judgment and necessity for the proper understanding of the issue involved, together with such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time. If an issue of fact is to be raised on appeal, the record on appeal shall include by reference all the evidence, oral and documentary, taken upon the issue involved. The reference shall specify the documentary evidence by the exhibit numbers or letters by which it was identified when admitted or offered at the hearing, and the oral evidence by the names of the corresponding witnesses. If the whole oral and documentary evidence in the case is to be included, a statement to that effect will be sufficient without mentioning the names of the witnesses or the numbers or letters of exhibits. Every record on appeal exceeding twenty (20) pages must contain a subject index.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25350 October 4, 1988 - WILLIAM A. CHITTICK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38039 October 4, 1988 - GENEROSA CAWIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67785 October 4, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CAPINPIN, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 3005 October 5, 1988 - EMILIA P. FORNILDA-OLILI v. SERGIO I. AMONOY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC October 5, 1988 - IN RE: RODOLFO U. MANZANO

  • G.R. No. L-36549 October 5, 1988 - FAR EAST REALTY INVESTMENT, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40324 October 5, 1988 - JOSE O. SIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51625 October 5, 1988 - FRANCISCO DUMLAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70458 October 5, 1988 - BENJAMIN SALVOSA, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72306 October 5, 1988 - DAVID P. FORNILDA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IVTH JUDICIAL REGION, PASIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75927 October 5, 1988 - LAND AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79690-707 October 7, 1988 - ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32215 October 17, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA

  • G.R. No. L-68117 October 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF FELINO T. SANTIAGO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39299 October 18, 1988 - ISAAC PANGAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41380 October 18, 1988 - ORLANDO LAGAZON v. VISIA P. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-44696 October 18, 1988 - JULIAN ESPIRITU v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46843 October 18, 1988 - VIRGILIA CABRESOS, ET AL. v. MEYNARDO A. TIRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50872 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO PARAGOSO

  • G.R. No. L-53552 October 18, 1988 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55377 October 18, 1988 - BENJAMIN DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. CECILIO F. BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61961 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS MARCIALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69679 October 18, 1988 - VIOLETA CABATBAT LIM, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69723 October 18, 1988 - APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORP., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-70836 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO M. TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-74675 October 18, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

  • G.R. No. 75198 October 18, 1988 - SCHMID & OBERLY, INC. v. RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 75311 October 18, 1988 - ROSITA ZAFRA BANTILLO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75336 October 18, 1988 - ANTONIO BORNALES, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76633 October 18, 1988 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77242 October 18, 1988 - ROMEO ZOLETA v. FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77278 October 18, 1988 - IN RE: FELLY LEE FONG SHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-78133 October 18, 1988 - MARIANO P. PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79237 October 18, 1988 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-80231 October 18, 1988 - CELSO A. FERNANDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-82811 October 18, 1988 - CONSOLIDATED PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AUGUSTO B. BREVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57937 October 21, 1988 - WILFREDO R. ANTONIO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-64673 October 21, 1988 - A. CONSTEEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-78391 October 21, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON G. ENRIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-83996 October 21, 1988 - CITY FISCAL OF TACLOBAN v. PEDRO S. ESPINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-71404-09 October 26, 1988 - HERMILO RODIS, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-73199 October 26, 1988 - RENATO SARA, ET AL. v. CERILA AGARRADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76737 October 27, 1988 - PANFILO OLIVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-81470 October 27, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO TUNHAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-83767 October 27, 1988 - FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS, ET AL. v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

  • G.R. No. L-84592 October 27, 1988 - ESTHER E. CUERDO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. L-39008 October 28, 1988 - PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49535 October 28, 1988 - ROMANA M. CRUZ v. FRANCISCO TANTUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51745 October 28, 1988 - RAMON F. SAYSON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55188 October 28, 1988 - JESUS LONTOC v. MINISTRY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60674 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PUTITO CAFE

  • G.R. No. L-62341 October 28, 1988 - JORGE WEE SIT, ET AL. v. OMAR U. AMIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69875 October 28, 1988 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71177 October 28, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72281 October 28, 1988 - MACARIO LAGMAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-72622 October 28, 1988 - VICTOR TORNO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75955 October 28, 1988 - MARIA LINDA FUENTES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-76991 October 28, 1988 - HERMENEGILDO L. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-77206 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON M. SOLOMON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-79043 October 28, 1988 - DOMINGO T. ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-79369-70 October 28, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEXANDER A. QUIDILLA

  • G.R. No. L-79958 October 28, 1988 - EMILIANA BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. CAROLINA C. GRIÑO-AQUINO, ET AL.